Comments

MikeDavis

And Judeye? Your statement "Others of us believe in sharing and caring with others, kinda like what some spiritual leaders have promoted in their teachings." is hilarious. You mean like the pope and the cardinals? Or the televangelists with their myriad of scandals and lavish lifestyles. The only people that live in poverty are the ones that send in much more than they can or should to these snake oil salesmen.

Roadglide

Judeye you ask the same stupid questions. Civilians can't legally have a machine gun (full auto) thanks to laws passed and requiring a 200 dollar tax stamp. An m16 is completely different from an ar15 so get that through your thick head. Restriction on ammo really? Again you have no idea. Restrict areas where one can carry? Then I expect an area where I can secure my firearm at say the court house! Seeing nys residents can't legally buy an ar15 I suggest they go and buy a Barrett 50 bmg and see how you prefer that firearm in the hands of us peasants:)

MikeDavis

Keep marching to the tune if you like Judeye. I like walking as an independent, free American. For some reason that idea scares the h.e.l.l out of the left. Personal freedom cannot be tolerated. We must legislate and tax all into submission, for that unattainable, yet always just around the corner, Utopia the left is so positive is there. Where no one has to work, all are taken care of from cradle to grave, and everyone just asks for whatever they want and it's delivered. Keep tilting at your windmills, I'll take my "selfishness" over fantasy all day.

MikeDavis

Judeye, Have you read the book? That's one of the lessons. How is that "Take care of everybody" attitude working for the country so far? Almost, (or is it now over?), 17 TRILLION in debt. We are giving arms to a nation that we are pretty sure is against us (Egypt) without even being paid for them. Yeah, a little "selfishness" is in order...and D.A.M.N.E.D. quick too. Personal responsibility and personal happiness are also lessons in the book, but that's criminal behavior to the far left. The sheer number of laws on the US books are ridiculous, and you want more? As the book says legislate the masses until all are criminals, that is how the politicians take control. Now they are slowly getting the idea out that it is okay to use drones on American citizens on American soil without due process. But that doesn't even scare you...

RipleyResident

I think that law abiding civilians should have access to any semi-automatic, manual action or revolver and any ammunition as they see fit.

I also have no issue with not allowing weapons into any secured areas, such as court houses, where the incoming folks are screened. I do think that such areas should, however, provide a service for those entering to check their weapons into safe storage while they are there.

"Gun free zones" that are solely governed by signs that state such are silly because only the law abiding citizens would comply, and if you do a little research, you will find that nearly every mass killing has occurred in a "gun free zone".

judeye

MikeDavis...just curious...do you think there should be ANY restrictions on weapons, they type, the ammo and where we can carry them?

Do you disagree with the banning of machine guns from civilians? Do you disagree with the law that prohibits weapons from entering our Country Court house? Is there any place or any type of weapon that should be banned or restricted?

As I pointed out before..even Wyatt Earp banned guns from being brought into town.

judeye

That is where we fundamentally differ. Some admire her and her "SELFISHNESS IS A VIRTUE" attitude (yes this is a title of a book she also wrote) Others of us believe in sharing and caring with others, kinda like what some spiritual leaders have promoted in their teachings.

MikeDavis

And in answer to your question Tom. Yes, it is an unreasonable. You answered your own question with the proof. You said "given the harm that can occur when less than ideal gun owners and gun use is involved". Well by golly, look at that. A criminal doing an illegal act is your proof that all law abiding people should have their rights impugned? I'm not only not buying, I'm not even interested in looking. I know your standard response. You are preaching to your echo chamber agaim Mike. No Tom, I'm trying to get you to listen to reason. The curbs you so dearly love and think will be the game changer are NOTHING but smoke and mirrors for the politicians to curry a few votes from the scared citizens that don't want people to have weapons that they don't like.

MikeDavis

The "what's wrong with SOME curbing of the 2nd?" folks just don't want to hear the truth. It starts out as that "little tweak" and gradually becomes "Here's your sling shot...stay safe" And not one of you can tell anyone how this makes YOU safer. It warms your little hearts to know you "did" something to answer the bad man that killed innocents. But it does nothing to make anyone safer. What it does do is make a lot of innocent people into criminals. Apparently we are dealing with the subservient "politicians are there for your best interest" crowd. Read "Atlas Shrugged" before it's to late. The lady was brilliant to a degree not seen in a generation. Ahead of her time is an understatement. Maybe you will see the inane number of laws already on the state books. But let's curb more rights. That's the answer to an apron string hanging child, not a right bestowed by the Constitution. You are all in such a rush to play out your

kcw007

And Judeye, how could anyone even remotely aquainted with you not know of your leftist political views? Do you really think that, at this point in time, they're going to confirm to YOU that they own what are now classified as "assault weapons", or for that matter, that they own guns at all?

RipleyResident

Those of you who love this gun control, look up the Ruger 22 charger. This is a target pistol version of probably the most popular semi-auto 22 rimfire rifle around. In NY, it's an assault weapon, even before the unSAFE act.

kcw007

No Cadefoster, you're incorrect. There was no limit in the number of rounds which could be loaded into a magazine prior to the 2013 SAFE Act(unless they were afield for hunting) . If you had a 10 round magazine (the maximum which could be purchased as new in NYS since the 1994 Federal AWB) or grandfathered "pre-ban" magazines of more than 10 rounds, you could load them up as you saw fit. And Judeye, most gun owners with any kind of a collection are going to have at least one, if not more, semiauto's with detachable clips; even if they're just 22 rimfires. During the past forty years, semiauto's (pistols, rifles and shotguns) have comprized a majority of new gun sales. During the past decade the AR clones were the most popular centerfire rifle sold nationally. Are you asking people if they own "assault weapons" or semiautos? There's a WHOLE LOT of people out there that fail to yet understand that their semi's are likely to now be classified as "assault weapons&

1Laona

DC ron LG,how about the Prince and his men make it 5 rounds next time(if not challenged now)and then 3,and then one(thereby outlawing derringers).How do you protect your home and family? 911? Insert head in sand? Wish it away? Do you feel any concern for those that fought for the rights you enjoy?Did you serve your country?It would help to understand why you and Regulateski SE feel as you do.Judeye sings the chorus in the background....

RipleyResident

Judeye - if you want answers to your questions, go back to any of the other articles you posted essentially the same questions to, and read the answers. All you do is stir the pot with the same ignorance every time there is a new article that so much as mentions guns.

Regelski

Am I to understand that the need to change a clip, in target shooting and in hunting is a burden on gun owners that isn't resonble to expect, given the harm that can occur when less than ideal gun owners and gun use is involved. It has been established that in recent events, the need to change clips is relevant. IN the Gifford's shooting, the shooter was interrupted enough that he could be captured by citizens. And at Newtown, the children often had 16 rounds in their bodies. In the Gifford's case, the second clip killed a young girl. Is it too much to ask gun enthusiasts to make a little sacrifice in their convenience for the benefit of us all, especially children?

joew

Dcronig-I never said what you insinuate sir. I was commenting on the NY SAFE ACT and asking how those three things I listed will save any lives. That I may own a firearm with any of those characteristics means the law as written infringes on my right to own or purchase a firearm with said features. Let me give you one example. My wife has shorter arms than I and therefore she has to shorten the stock in order to use the firearm. Does that make sense?

Dcronlg

wiseup -- So, "when gov takes away our freedoms we all loose. We fight to protect morons like you too!", am I to assume you guys with your guns are fighting against the PATRIOT act? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov overreach with curtailing voting rights? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov cutting back on a woman's right to choose with her own body? Are you guys with your guns fighting gov who are actively curtailing gay rights?

Well -- are you guys with your guns fighting gov for...just what exactly and protecting who?

Dcronlg

Joew - back at you: Please explain to me how reducing the capacity of a magazine from 10 down to 7 chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty? Please as well explain how eliminating the grip on your rifle chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty? How will outlawing the extendable(not folding)stock on your rifle chips away at the 2nd amendment and erodes your liberty?

joew

Judeye-you really expect me to list here on a public forum what I own? Are you kidding me? Suffice to say I own several firearms. Now please realistically tell me how those restrictions I listed will save any lives.